I take exception to this comment from you, since it is nothing but your personal opinion, whereas I can demonstrate the facts are otherwise, and have done so many times in the past.

——————————————-

“However, I will take exception to your repeated need to attack those of wealth without discretion. To each person “wealth” has a different meaning, so one has to be careful. To a person who struggled to achieve financial security (such as yourself) there are many who would consider you a person of “wealth”. I know many people of “wealth” (when compared to myself) who are extremely generous with their time and assets, who seek no recompense whatsoever. They are honest, hardworking individuals who made the most of opportunities. Most, were raised in humble environments without any preferential access to wealth or political influence. They did it on their own

————————————-

PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!

Clearly, your problem is not in how I say something, but in what I am saying, which is what I suspected.

You are obviously one of those people who see the wealthy class through rose-colored glasses. Thus, ANY attack on your Gods brings out the knee-jerk response of any good guard dog, no matter that his master is not worthy of protecting.

The wealthy class are NOT Gods, as lick-spittles like you think, but evil people who would destroy this world for no other reason than because they can. They are totally devoid of conscience and care for no one but their own class. History is full of what these people have done. THAT is what you object to when I attack the wealthy class. It hits far too close to home.

As a result, NOTHING I say would make any difference to you because your core belief structure is so corrupted by admiration and worship for these sick people.

NOW I finally understand who and what you are. It is people like you who are the real problem because they aid and abet the wealthy class like acolytes of some sick religion, and are willing to sacrifice not only your own life, but the lives of others to protect them.

You are like some religious fanatic who cannot allow the slightest question of his God being something less than divine.

I won’t argue with a person like you whose mind is completely closed. It is an absolute waste of my time.

My first comments were to compliment you on the quality of your response–only then to have you go into attack mode, followed by a comment that effectively states “if you do not like it, then shove it.” My response to you obviously hit home, which was the intention, that caused you to step back and address my characterization. That’s good, because it caused you to step back and think about it.

Your last two comments were very clear, yet tempered. However, I will take exception to your repeated need to attack those of wealth without discretion. To each person “wealth” has a different meaning, so one has to be careful. To a person who struggled to achieve financial security (such as yourself) there are many who would consider you a person of “wealth”. I know many people of “wealth” (when compared to myself) who are extremely generous with their time and assets, who seek no recompense whatsoever. They are honest, hardworking individuals who made the most of opportunities. Most, were raised in humble environments without any preferential access to wealth or political influence. They did it on their own.

Allow me to make an assumption for a moment….I despise the “aristocratic” and “political” elite who seek to impose their view of society on me, effectively diminishing my opportunity to achieve my personal and financial goals. Per your response, I believe you are of the same persuasion. If so, in the future temper your attacks on those of “wealth” and target the aristocratic elites on Wall Street, who use their wealth to fund agendas which effectively allows them to retain their privilege at the expense of the masses); as well as the political elite (including our President) who demand redistribution of wealth which effectively diminishes the opportunity for motivated individuals to achieve their personal goals, financial or otherwise.

Those aristocratic elite and political elite who shroud their demands for “equality” are really demanding “equality of results” versus the “equality of opportunity” that I (and I think you as well) embrace. They are consciously deceiving the public to ensure their influence, and those of their families, is secured for the future. Their repeated demands for legislation to correct every perceived ill in society by creating new “rights” only serves to ensure all of our rights and liberties are further diminished, with the power further consolidated within the “political aristocracy”.

Thus, I personally took offensive to your comment regarding “moronic libertarians”. I am a classic liberal who detests the platforms of both political parties who have embraced the corruption of the Beltway by saddling my children with astronomic debt and further diminished liberties in order to secure their political influence. As Hayek stated, left to there own designs, in a (classic) liberal environment each person will have the opportunity to pursue their own agenda. Government, in its current form, is an obstacle; and the majority of votes are not willing to acknowledge it.

I fail to understand how, if you read what I have posted for comments, you can possibly misconstrue what I have said to such a degree.

You continue to attack me for reasons I cannot understand.

I know some people who attack me are little more than wealthy class lackeys and sycophants who think the wealthy class are some kind of Gods. We have been cursed by people like that throughout history, and even have them in great abundance in our society.

But that does not seem to be your problem, at least not obviously.

What is YOUR problem with what I am saying, EXACTLY?

ALL I WANT TO RETAIN WHAT RELATIVELY LITTLE SECURITY I HAVE EARNED BY HARD WORK MY ENTIRE LIFE, AND THESE BASTARDS WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY SO THEY CAN GET WEALTHIER THAN THEY ARE NOW.

Since you have chosen to attack me for no apparent reason on a number of occasions, you owe me an explanation.

I’d like to understand what your “problem” is with my comments. NOTHING you have said at any point has given me a clue.

How about the truth for a change, instead of the same vague mumbo-jumbo?

Did you not read MY REPLY TO YOU when you said you were trying to understand what I meant when I said we had to reverse 30+ years of taxes, free trade and banking regulation to save this nation from being destroyed by the wealthy class, WHICH IS MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE PRESENTLY WEALTHY-CORRUPTED SYSTEM.

Here is an excerpt from that comment:

“You may or may not know from my previous comments that, while presently retired, I worked for several decades as a Plant Controllor and Finance Manager primarily in the high tech industry at the same time this massive paradigm shift was beginning to take place, so I got to see this whole thing happening in “real time”, as well as its pernicious effects. I am also a CPA/MBA with an intense interest in the present day “totally abnormal” global economic theory and its impact on various existing politcal systems, especially in relation to its impact on the “historically normal” global economic theory and politics that existed from the early 20th Century … .”

I am NOT some damn bleeding heart liberal who is “demanding an equitable distribution of wealth you did not earn, and being compensated at the same rate as someone who made the appropriate investments in time and energy.”

I was born EXTREMELY poor, but by dint of hard work and massive amounts of student loans, I managed to work my way up the corporate ladder to hold significant management positions in the high tech industry.

Not a God damn thing was ever handed to me in my life!

WHY would I want to give anyone who has not worked for what they have ANYTHING?

Basically, I could care less for the “masses”, or what happens to them. I don’t even like people, because they are generally stupid and aggressive, and not likely to listen to reason.

The ONLY thing I care about is the fact that the wealthy class, through their excessive greed is about to crash our economy AGAIN, thus destroying what little security I have worked my entire life to achieve.

The wealthy class generally CANNOT restrain themselves — and this applies to ALL civilizations at ANY time in history — so they must be forcibly restrained from “fouling their own nest” by effective laws and regulations.

These are stupid, greedy people who will not listen to reason, and who cannot even act rationally for their own self-preservation.

In their greed they have managed to undo ALL the regulations that were imposed on them after they managed to destroy this economy in the 1929 crash, which is the cause of the Great Depression.

What they want is to return to THEIR “good old days” of “survival of the fittest”, which WILL destroy this nation’s economy.

It makes me “crazy” to see what is happening and no one seems to understand how dangerous these people really are.

THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH THE WEALTHY CLASS. THEY ARE SO GREEDY AND SHORT-SIGHTED THAT, LEFT TO THEMSELVES, THEY WILL DESTROY THIS ECONOMY AND WE WILL HAVE MASSIVE SOCIAL DISRUPTIONS AS A RESULT OF THEM.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM THAT YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT SIMPLE?

]]>By: COindependenthttp://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/05/14/not-in-the-spirit-of-hayek/#comment-874
Wed, 15 May 2013 19:49:45 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=357#comment-874@pseudo. I hear the non-stop bleating of social network savvy OWS. Over-educated in the philosophies of “fairness” and “equity” for all, but with little in marketable skills that would motivate you to get a job. Instead it’s always easier to condemn success and preach the zero-sum game that success is achieved solely at the expense of someone else.

Continue the diatribe, please, while , demanding an equitable distribution of wealth you did not earn, and being compensated at the same rate as someone who made the appropriate investments in time and energy. And, further demand that you should not be accountable for the choices only you are responsible for. Yeah, I get it!

“Each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities” a dramatically failed system, in both theory and practice, that you obviously embrace.

Condemn to your hearts content, it’s the easy way out. No accountability– it will only make you feel better. But your probably a product of the self-esteem generation. Here’s your trophy. You won!

]]>By: brotherkenny4http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/05/14/not-in-the-spirit-of-hayek/#comment-873
Wed, 15 May 2013 18:30:18 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=357#comment-873“Fox News audience”– the republican conservative with tendencies of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom.”
That is extremely funny. Your being sarcastic right? No? Well, that is even more funny, because conservatives are neither fiscally conservative or supporters of freedom. What was the statement “prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.” Look in the mirror.
]]>By: PseudoTurtlehttp://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/05/14/not-in-the-spirit-of-hayek/#comment-872
Wed, 15 May 2013 17:54:15 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=357#comment-872I meant to include this quote in my comment above ““The higher the education and intelligence of individuals,” he wrote in Serfdom, “the more their views and tastes are differentiated.” The corollary is that “to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people.”

Hayek and I would have agreed on many things he said, but he was no “economist”.

]]>By: PseudoTurtlehttp://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/05/14/not-in-the-spirit-of-hayek/#comment-871
Wed, 15 May 2013 17:46:52 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=357#comment-871There appear to be several people, who upon reading my comments, tend to be “put off” by them, to which I reply “that is your problem not mine”.

It is far easier to attack the person for what he is saying, than to try to understand the message, no matter how it is being said.

My guess is that it wouldn’t matter how my comments are worded, you detractors simply refuse see the “forest for the trees”.

I notice the author’s comments are equally misunderstood, and he is treating the subject with far more courtesy that I would.

As for those who plead for me to lower my standards — to “dumb them down” so that they can understand what I am saying — my reply is “been there, done that”, since it turned out to be a totally pointless exercise on my part.

I cannot open your mind, if you choose not to do so.

Neither am I responsible, if you choose not to make the slightest effort to educate yourselves on the issues.

My disagreement with Hayek centers almost exclusively in the area of his views on economics, not necessarily on his social views.

I have said this before. If you disagree with what I am saying, at least respond with something that merits my reply. Otherwise, IF I deign to reply to you at all, you can expect to receive back the same kind of derogatory remarks, with interest, from your wasted investment of time and energy that could be used far more wisely.

Mr. Wapshott has written an absolutely excellent article on the subject, yet from the few comments it is garnered — the paucity of comments is a strong indication that the bulk of commentors tend to flock around inane “hot button” issues that have little to do with our present or long-term survival as a nation — which is another indicator of the general low intelligence of the masses (which Hayek also mistrusted), preferring instead to … “accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

If you are disgruntled, I suggest you read Mr. Wapshott’s article and suggested references again and again, until you can understand what he is saying.

]]>By: COindependenthttp://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/05/14/not-in-the-spirit-of-hayek/#comment-870
Wed, 15 May 2013 17:07:09 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=357#comment-870@pseudo I just don’t get the ad hominem attacks from the first sentence. They only serve diminish any validity in your argument.

If you are that bitter about events, perhaps you might stoop down to us illiterates for a moment and acknowledge that their is not any perfect society.